The Physics of God

[Majik]

The universe had a beginning. True or False?

 

Just because a state of non-existence, opposite existence, is a plausible state does not mean that the universe was ever in that state.

Logic does not exist without both true and false states. One state is not sufficient to have a logic. If all existence is only one possible state, then existence cannot be logical. There needs to be both existence and non-existence in order for existence to represent what is true in a logical scheme. If existence does not belong to a logical scheme, then existence is not logical. Therefore, there must have been two states, existence and non-existence. And since we have existence, then non-existence must have been the prior state.

[C1ay]

Logic does not exist without both true and false states.

 

So. The Universe could well have been in the "true" state for all of time without ever having been in the false state, i.e. just because there is a false state doesn't mean the Universe ever HAD to be in that state...

[CraigD]

Logic does not exist without both true and false states. One state is not sufficient to have a logic. If all existence is only one possible state, then existence cannot be logical. There needs to be both existence and non-existence in order for existence to represent what is true in a logical scheme. If existence does not belong to a logical scheme, then existence is not logical. Therefore, there must have been two states, existence and non-existence. And since we have existence, then non-existence must have been the prior state.

I believe Majik has committed a category error, confusing propositions (eg: the universe exists now; the universe did not exist at some time in the past; the universe will not exist at some time in the future; etc) and truth values (true; false; etc) in a traditional, syllogistic logical system.

 

While it is true that such a logical system (also known as a propositional calculus) with only 1 truth value would not be very useful (though such systems with more than 2 truth values can be), this does not imply that every proposition must be true. One can have a well-formed logical system operating on a consistent collection of postulates in which the proposition “the universe exists now” is true, and “the universe did not exist at some time in the past” is false. To logically require that the universe has a beginning requires additional postulates, such as Aristotle’s doctrine of a first cause.

 

Majik’s argument is reminiscent of Kant and Hegel’s logic of “being, nothing, and becoming”, but without the third part of the triad (“becoming”). To the best of my knowledge, such a system of logic is neither formally or “transcendentally” (the term sometimes applied to distinguish systems such as Kant and Hegel’s from “formal” ones, such a Bool’s) sound.

 

Majik, how does your scheme avoid requiring that implications such as “at present, no three-letter word consists of exactly four letters exist, therefore, at some time, three-letter word consisting of exactly four letters existed” are true?

[jedaisoul]

My question is this; why must God be omnipotent? Could we not become creators if we chose to? It seems that the universe (life on earth) could have been created by miracles similar to those that built the coral castle, rather than of what we define as divinity. The all or nothing approach seems short sighted for both sides of the argument.

Good point. Equally, why does God have to have created the universe? Surely, what matters is whether God exists now, not billions of years ago?

[CraigD]

My question is this; why must God be omnipotent? Could we not become creators if we chose to? It seems that the universe (life on earth) could have been created by miracles similar to those that built the coral castle, rather than of what we define as divinity.

This question – the idea of what I termed a “merely sufficiently powerful” God - and its many detailed variations, are what I think fiction writers such as Clark, Baxter, Farmer, and Niven are suggesting, non-fiction writers such as Tippler, and even notorious pseudoscience writers like von Daniken are arguing may be answered “yes” – though Tippler’s “Physics of Immortality” version of an Omega Point Theory proposes an intelligence so advanced as to be practically indistinguishable not just from a particular supernatural god, but from any one.

The all or nothing approach seems short sighted for both sides of the argument.

:thumbs_up I agree – but in my experience, TBD and I are in a nitch minority that share this opinion.

 

The majority of theists with whom I’ve discussed this idea find it unsatisfying on such ground “that [a merely sufficiently powerful God] might exist, but that wouldn’t really be God”, and that any self-proclaimed theist believing in such an idea is actually a variety of atheist. These dissenting theists have most of theological tradition on their side: the ontological definition of God (“that which nothing greater than can be conceived”) promulgated by writers such as Anselm and Aquinas unambiguously (though not un-paradoxically) requires that God be omnipotent.

 

Atheists, agnostics, and other “not-theists” with whom I’ve spoken tend to admit the idea as a possibility, but an unlikely one, noting that in most of the fiction I cite, some glaring obvious proof of the idea is present (the giant spacecraft in the Rama novels, the obelisk in the “2001” novels and movies, Charlie the 50,000 year old hominid skeleton in a spacesuit of unknown manufacture found on the surface of the moon in James Hogan’s “Inherit the Stars”, etc.) Not to be out-argued on matters science-fictional, ;) I typically counter with references to books such as Baxter’s “Xeelee Sequence”, in which evidence of “world (or universe) engineering” exists, but is difficult to discover, or Egan’s “Diaspora”, in which the discovery of evidence of engineering requires the protagonists to achieve god-like technology themselves. However, both these skeptical-pessimistic and skeptical-optimistic positions batter rather futilely against the logical principle that the absence of proof is not disproof (nor, of course, proof) of a proposition.

 

Most of the variations above are what I’ll term “big artifact” versions of engineered worlds or universes. Another large family of engineered world ideas, which I’ll term “small artifact”, involve the idea of an advanced intelligence manipulating not planets, stars, or whole galaxies or universes, but microscopic things, especially DNA. Unfortunately, discussing this with people knowledgeable about molecular biology requires a long and careful preamble to assure them you’re not a covert “intelligent design” proponent. Recent religious and politic controversies have, I think, rather poisoned this otherwise interesting family of ideas. :(

 

I think science enthusiasts and promoters do well to strive to re-legitimize the “small artifact” line of scientific (or at least hard science fictional) inquiry. Toward this end, consider the following:

 

At present, the majority of the insulin in the roughly [math]10^7[/math] liters of insulin suspension used annually by human diabetics is manufactured by genetically altered e-coli. Were human beings to suddenly “disappear from the Earth” (either through extinction, or a less catastrophic decline in civilization) these and other genetically engineered organisms would likely reenter the wild population (if they have not so in significant numbers already), and carry some version of artificially inserted genes for many thousands of years.

 

Would a civilization technologically similar to our own present day one, appearing thousands of years after the above disappearance, be able to detect, understand, and have become widely accepted consensus, that these genomes were artificially altered?

 

This is not an idle philosophical question. We know now, or could practically determine, the genetic code of present day commercial genetically engineered bacteria. We have reasonable models for genetic change in wild bacteria populations. We know the techniques and practical logistics and politics of research that might detect such a thing (though the latter are arguably difficult to quantify). What is the likelihood (probability) of the question above having an answer of yes?

[Majik]

Majik, how does your scheme avoid requiring that implications such as “at present, no three-letter word consists of exactly four letters exist, therefore, at some time, three-letter word consisting of exactly four letters existed” are true?

 

Your proposition does not require data or observation. The fact that three letter words do not consist of four letters is true in form. It is a tautology independent of data. All it does is serve to prove that one must recognize true and false before any type of logic can be applied. Definitions of anything cannot be established without the ability to recognize what is a case from what is not the case of a definition. How can all existence represent truth without there never being a state of false?

[Rade]

... and if you can *imagine* something greater than God, then shouldn't you really be worshiping that?...

I can imagine the "present" as being greater than God, but it is hard to put my thoughts into the lexicon of physics. If God conforms to the laws of physics, then God must act within spacetime in some infinite manner. But the "present" is outside time and thus not contingent on the infinite God, for while God requires the present to be the limit of its current actions, the present can exist in pure form with no need of God, so I conclude that the "present" is greater than God. Thus the statement "live within the present" is to me greater than the statement "live within God", and it is then what I worship, if I must worship anything derived from imagination.

[Boerseun]

My question is this; why must God be omnipotent?

Little late in quoting you now, but I kinda lost track of this particular thread...

 

Any case, wondering about the omnipotence (or not) or God in order to deduce his physics as per this thread, is redundant. The God we're presented with, is accredited with "Omnipotence" in his biggest marketing flyer, the Bible. So, while I agree in principle that omnipotence isn't strickly required if advanced knowledge is available, omnipotence and all it entails is what we're presented with.

However, if we can chuck omnipotence, which would then remove the need for a supermassive black hole existing within 2,000 light years of Earth, then either:

 

1) The Bible is wrong

2) There is no God.

 

If 1), then we've definitely and without a doubt shown a flaw in the Bible, kinda screwing with the accepted belief that the Bible is the Word of God, and infallible. How are we to believe anything else in that particular document then?

If 2), my personal favourite, then we're wasting our time assigning attributes to a fictional character. It's fun, though, but almost as practical as debating whether Sherlock Holmes wore tweed or wool. Who actually cares?

 

Only difference is that millions of people have been killed over the years and millions are sure to be killed in the future based on the imagined sayings of this particular fictional character. Maybe they should start reading Sherlock Holmes and take up the tweed/wool debate, rather. It sounds less lethal.

Also, with the World Health Organisation going nuts every few years trying to eradicate malaria 'cause it kills so many people, what's the chances of the WHO launching a program to eradicate religion? It's a virus of the mind that kills millions, and is totally preventable. Or maybe not. Ask the commies in Russia who tried to eradicate it...

[HydrogenBond]

The dumbing down of God; If you look at the concept of God it is describing the highest form of intelligence. Putting aside whether there is a God or not, the concept is talking about something higher than aliens. As such, do advanced life forms need to dumb down to be real? If an advanced life form gave off an advanced signal, more appropriate to their level of intelligence, and we were not advanced enough to receive or understand it, does that mean it does not exist? Is it possible that human limitation is what is causing the interface problem?

 

Say for example, an alien life form landed on earth. They already have anti-gravity and light speed reference normalization technology. If they stay at their level then they are a threat. If they dumb down to our level then we may attempt to coax them to share their advance technology. If they were nice, they may take their time to teach the pack of mental midgets. Humans would be sort of like their pets, that can learn a few basic commands.

 

In the old Testament, God seemed irrational and moody. This could be explained with the fact that he was dealing with a pack of idiots who couldn't get the gist of what he had in mind. Even after dumbing down many notches, the ancient humans still couldn't quite get it. Regardless, God still gave them basic ideas as a foundation, with many assuming this watered down version of God was somehow the final essence of God.

 

With the appearance of Jesus, God becomes man for the ultimate dumb down. Not that Jesus was dumb, but this was about as low as God could get for his pets. It was done out of love. But at that level dumb down, humans mistook this version of God for weakness. In modern times, is it possible that God has decided it is not his responsibility to be dumb? Science may only be advanced enough to pass judgement on a watered down version of God that requires a lot of dumb down on God's behalf. His pets only know so many tricks, but assume this is enough to judge the full version.

[Mike C]

The dumbing down of God; If you look at the concept of God it is describing the highest form of intelligence. Putting aside whether there is a God or not, the concept is talking about something higher than aliens. As such, do advanced life forms need to dumb down to be real? If an advanced life form gave off an advanced signal, more appropriate to their level of intelligence, and we were not advanced enough to receive or understand it, does that mean it does not exist? Is it possible that human limitation is what is causing the interface problem?

 

Say for example, an alien life form landed on earth. They already have anti-gravity and light speed reference normalization technology. If they stay at their level then they are a threat. If they dumb down to our level then we may attempt to coax them to share their advance technology. If they were nice, they may take their time to teach the pack of mental midgets. Humans would be sort of like their pets, that can learn a few basic commands.

 

In the old Testament, God seemed irrational and moody. This could be explained with the fact that he was dealing with a pack of idiots who couldn't get the gist of what he had in mind. Even after dumbing down many notches, the ancient humans still couldn't quite get it. Regardless, God still gave them basic ideas as a foundation, with many assuming this watered down version of God was somehow the final essence of God.

 

With the appearance of Jesus, God becomes man for the ultimate dumb down. Not that Jesus was dumb, but this was about as low as God could get for his pets. It was done out of love. But at that level dumb down, humans mistook this version of God for weakness. In modern times, is it possible that God has decided it is not his responsibility to be dumb? Science may only be advanced enough to pass judgement on a watered down version of God that requires a lot of dumb down on God's behalf. His pets only know so many tricks, but assume this is enough to judge the full version.

 

Well, after studying this bible on the web for a couple of years, I have reduced the bible down to the lowest level of knowledgeble sources.

 

So the physical parts of these sources is the Sun and the Moon.

 

The Sun, of course represents the day or light with the chauvinist lion as the Jewish weapons sun god and as a male..

 

On the other hand, the Moon represents the females as the creator gods because of the link to the Moons image and the menstral periods in relation to the Moons cycles. Since this is the light of darkness, it would be applicable to the apes.

Since the apes have 'hands' that I consider as the greatest gift to humanity,

The jealouse weapons god (fangs and claws) is waging war on the apes and their 'hands'

 

But why did the bible separate the light and darkness? Well for this solution, we have to look inward and we discover that our bodies separate the wastes into day (urine) and darkness (manure).

So these chauvinists are discriminating against us apes because they have F&C's while we only have hands. So we apes do not get any respect.

 

Mike C